How about it? Experiments of the third kind , take 999999.

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:33:24 -0400) it happened " snipped-for-privacy@teranews.com" wrote in :

I have those, what's you problem? Brain damage? - Uncle Al[l] - you must be kidding, his EOTVOS, his artificial diamond factory, his language, if you are a fan of him only he can help you. LOL

To quote Al : "Uncle Al only needs one more valve to have his artificial diamond setup working." That was 10 years ago. After that the left sci.physics in shame after he had to admit he could not tell

1 from 2 in scientific papers. I remember the last conversation here in sci.physics, where he was quizzing how many of the papers of the preprint server were bogus, and wanted us to read them, I refused with the comment that they probably all were bogus. That did not match his estimate and play his game, and he left tail between legs. A fighter stays, I have seen him spamming some forum lately.

And Sam Wormley is our hero, do not criticize him, he is the best copy cat around.

So, in all this where do I stand? I do some experiments sometimes. And as to your argument, when looking for seasonal changes, why would you care about pulses per second you are going to integrate over time anyways, so the tritium light does that for you. And you do not need spectroscopy to get decay info if you use a pure sample, as you know what is in there. Running your setup for a year a, no break supply, thermostats, your PMTs will age man, you have no clue.

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:26:31 +0100) it happened Jeroen Belleman wrote in :

You are right. Half of half of half of half etc

So say half after 1 day,

1/4 after 2 days, 1/8 after 3 days, etc. But easy to subtract in the analysis of the data, I meant not like a seasonal wave.

tell 1 from 2 in scientific papers.

Is this the total retard JanPan trying to dis Uncle Al?

You're an idiot, dumbfuck. He didn't leave sci.physics at all, idiot, and certainly not ten years ago.

You are about as dumb as it gets, boy. AND you can't even get your line length right for Usenet posts!

Will you ever stop posting STUPID CRAP into Usenet? You lying piece of shit!

Essentially, you are a complete and utter retard.

I hope you get irradiated, and mutate a cell or two, and then get your body taken over by your "passion", one cell at a time, ending in an excruciatingly painful death.

The most good you would do this group is for us to get a nice photo of your agonizing death mask.

Then your only accomplishment would be to teach folks what not to do.

Then, you would have some inkling of 'worth'.

Thats still linear, IIRC its more of a k.e^(-a.t) ??

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:54:29 +0800) it happened "Dennis" wrote in :

I tried eating half the cookies every time I was in the kitchen. Theory being that I would never run out. Unfortunately due to quantisation the cookies ran out anyways :-)

I found some, and downloaded the data sheets. Seems conrad.nl only carries Osram photo diodes.

There is for example the bpx61 with > 50 nA / lx (typical 70) and the BPW34B with 75 nA / lx.

From my circuit, with a beta of about 330 for each transistor, and 2 uA output, the LED photo current should be 20 nA. I raised the voltage to 9 V (battery) and put the cathode of the LED on a trimpot, so I can adjust the LED reverse voltage. Above some voltage the LED starts to leak.... Temperature will have an effect too. Not much current 20 nA, if we assume (just a wild guess) 20 nA / lx for the LED then it would mean 1 lx from the tritium tube. The LED has a lens, it is focused on the tube. Will get some photo diodes later, and also try some other LEDs.

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:53:51 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :

Sorry, 20 pA, because 2 uA / (330 x 330)

Should be: makes 1/1000 lx.

Really is not much.

You didn't use enough cookies. Start with a couple million, and try it again.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

You've got phosphor aging, tritium leakage and possibly aging of other circuit elements. Unless you put in an optical calibration source that was more stable than the rest of the system, I doubt you could get much of a result. How about counting Gamma rays, which will throw out a couple of these effects? You still have to deal with the Tritium leaking from the capsule, and I have no idea how you deal with that.

Jon

again expecting a different result [1]."

something else affects radioactive decay).

So if you see a change in one year, do you claim certainty ? What about the next million ? I think you should read your Einstein quote again.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen           adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.

YOU are dumber than dogshit, boy.

again expecting a different result [1]."

something else affects radioactive decay).

anti-neutrino that

Are not neutrons, neutrinos, and the anti-s all impossible to directly detect because (mainly) lack of charge? The only "hope" is if one bashes into something else creating (what is called) specie - and then one sets up proper detectors and analyzers to count and measure them and _deduce_ the presence of the original particle(s).

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:56:43 -0800) it happened Robert Baer wrote in :

Yes we live in the electronics world of this age where we do things with charge. getting hit by a neutral billiard ball does create some effects, like I mentioned elsewhere neutrino and anti-neutrino detectors come in many varieties, some just water, where the collisions produce light flashes that then can be detected with our present day equipment we are so proud of.

On a sunny day (Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:04:50 +1000) it happened Adrian Jansen wrote in :

again expecting a different result [1]."

or something else affects radioactive decay).

In this case I would look for a cyclic effect, and in such an effect, if it exists, you would, if it is seasonal, arrive at the same point where you were a year later. That is after subtracting the decay effect, that can be done because it is known.

There is a Russian paper that finds a connection in the radioactive decay of pl*t*nium to the orientation of the experiment in the galactic plane.

As spiral arms and galaxies move, feel free to hang around in some forms for a longer experiment. But me, I want to keep my feet on the earth and just run for one year.

This is the problem with the physicks today, they take Einstein's formulas and just extrapolate on those, finding theories of wormholes, singularities, and what not, running simulations with those equations, and then calling those 'proof', etc. While Einstein clearly stated that neither are those formulas (of relatitvity) a complete description of reality, nor should they be used as such (freely translated).

And then there are all his errors, such as photon. After all Einstein was more a political figure then anything else. He or his teachings probably set science back a couple of hundred (optimistic), or could be thousands of years, as brainwashed formula parroting clones are created under the label of 'scientists' in the schools of today, sort of tape recorders, without any ability to really see. Like the earth is flat because Einstein did say so[1], and beware those that do not agree or even look at the horizon and ask why that ship is sinking.... Epicycles. And you want me to read that AGAIN? Hey, lets have some fun, I am working on this design. It is real, the results will be measurable, and it is fun to do. It is more fun than reading a zillion PhD tissue papers on the preprint server, and it is in a way a challenge or a puzzle to build this thing as cheap as can be.

[1] He did not say that, but this is just indicate a similarity to that well know case. [2] Einstein failed to find the 'one stone'.

On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:31:30 -0500) it happened Jon Elson wrote in :

The advantage of looking for 'cyclic' events with a period time of a year over other systematic events makes this experiment possible. Not even interested in absolute values, just in wave patterns. On top of that I think there is no tritium leakage to speak of from the fused quartz tube. There is no need for optical calibration. Just for temperature compensation (dark current compensation) from the photo cell, and of course will do some oven and fridge tests of the whole setup. If it is found that the tritium tube needs to be at a fixed temperature, then, because it is so small, it can be heated with a simple resistor and measured with a LM335, and the PIC micro controller can keep it at say 45°C. All old hat electronically. The only drawback of doing the thermostat thing is that it would need some more power, and then it would need batteries with a wallwart as backup, or wallwart with batteries as backup, whatever you picture of the situation is.

I am looking into photo diodes now, have worked out the dark current compensation I think, now am looking at the amplifier and PIC asm code.

Overall the whole experiment should be in a thermally insulated box with metal shielding I think, as already in the tests setup EM interference can mess up things. Jippee! We are sailing.

Your experimental noise means you can never be sure that you have a 'real' cycle after only one period. You need enough cycles to be able to reduce the noise effect so your measurement certainty is 'enough'. You can easily calculate how many cycles you need, given the noise and certainty you require.

A similar problem, and much easier to do, is to measure the atmospheric pressure change over a 1 day period, and deduce the effect of the solar (and lunar) gravitational effects on the pressure. Over one day, its quite difficult, because of all the other atmospheric influences, but over many days, the noise can be reduced rather well, and the signal is very easy to see.

--
Regards,

Adrian Jansen           adrianjansen at internode dot on dot net
Note reply address is invalid, convert address above to machine form.

On a sunny day (Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:56:16 +1000) it happened Adrian Jansen wrote in :

That depends on the amplitude of the signal you get now does it not? Do you know that amplitude in advance?

We know it's really, really low because much better funded groups than you are arguing over whether it is there at all!

--

John Devereux